Re-nationalisation & Shares?

EachPenny

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

re railtrack: the shareholders got a fair bit of compensation in the end, IIRC. it was a very good thing that that was re-nationalized: railtrack had an appalling safety record, including fatal train crashes. the mechanics for how it was re-nationalized were a bit of a mess, though.

Of course there were never any rail accidents (including fatal ones) before privatisation, and obviously there have been none under Network Rail's management either. :wall:

kidmugsy

le_loup wrote: »

What a shame that an honest question should receive a few rabid Daily Mail type responses. Do people no longer have a pause (for thought) button?

On the contrary, the suggestion that already nationalised railways be nationalised is the short of stupid, ignorant proposal that deserves all the scorn that can be mustered. What next? Nationalise the Royal Navy?

eskbanker

EachPenny wrote: »

Of course there were never any rail accidents (including fatal ones) before privatisation, and obviously there have been none under Network Rail's management either. :wall:

I think most would agree from this chart that the post-Railtrack era (late 2002 on) is generally a distinct improvement over what went before it, especially with another couple of zeroes to be added to the right hand side:

MK62

grey_gym_sock wrote: »

it's amazing the level of rabid hostility that corbyn generates. when you look at the actual policies, they're mild, sensible reforms.

You nearly had me there......:rotfl:;)

kidmugsy

eskbanker wrote: »

I think most would agree from this chart that the post-Railtrack era (late 2002 on) is generally a distinct improvement over what went before it, especially with another couple of zeroes to be added to the right hand side:

Railtrack was still using lots of the signalling equipment left over from British Rail. Network Rail has benefitted from investments made under Railtrack. I have no idea how much of the disparity is explained by this effect, but as usual in life you've got to allow for the lags when you interpret measurements. There's also the "Law of Small Numbers": just one big smash under Network Rail would change that picture rather a lot. Still, there's no denying that far more people are moved around far more safely than in the days of British Rail.

Glen_Clark

Alexland wrote: »

And do you remember the bad coffee in polystyrene cups with thin plastic lids?

I remember the simple honest ticket pricing under British Rail. You didn't need to research it and jump through hoops backwards to get a reasonable ticket price. It was same price however you bought it, and a return was twice the price of a single.(Which we still have with CalMac ferries in Scotland.)
Only thing thats improved for the commuter since privatisation is the food. But then the food everywhere else has improved since the old days too.

ColdIron

Alexland wrote: »

And do you remember the bad coffee in polystyrene cups with thin plastic lids?

I remember many quite agreeable bottles of Hardy's Nottage Hill on the Leeds to King's X route on Friday evenings

I also remember corridor-less carriages (always popular with women), the deaths and dismemberments from slam door trains, brown windows and greasy headrests. Who can forget having to force the sliding windows down so you can use the outside handle to open the door coming into stations because you lacked the super-human strength required to use the inside slidey thing?

A return to British Rail? No thanks, it was grim

DiggerUK

Twointhebush wrote: »

With talk of re-nationalisation of the Railways in the papers, what happens to people's shares in a railway if that happens?

If that is what you think will happen.....short the shares..._

eskbanker

Although it's understandable that many people associate (re)nationalisation with the old BR days, it would of course be a completely false dichotomy to assume that we have a choice of either things as they are now or reverting back to how they were in the 1970s/80s/whatever!

Or does anyone seriously think the trains operated by the government on the main east coast route from 2009 to 2015 (to be repeated again from later this month) were noticeably dirtier (or had poorer catering, were subject to more industrial action, etc) than the equivalent on other comparable lines?

kidmugsy

The present system seems to be that Network Rail promises lots of improvements to track, signals, and stations. The operating companies bid accordingly to provide the services. Network Rail then fails to make the promised improvements. The operating companies cry "foul" and demand to be released from their contracts. Meanwhile the unions exercise their malign influence.

And even this mess is far, far superior to British Rail.

Of all conceivable ways to change it, "nationalise the lot of 'em" must be by far the worst option.